Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 12 199 <br />BOOK 90 FACE 1,3 <br />D. Request for Extension of Riverboat Club Subdivision Land <br />Development Permit <br />The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer David B. Cox dated <br />October 1, 1993: <br />H -111 <br />THROUGH: <br />FROM: <br />SUBJECT: <br />James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />James W. Davis, P.E. <br />Public Works Directs <br />and / <br />Roger D. Cain, P.FI_ <br />County Engineer <br />David B. Cox, P.EW.— <br />Civil Engineer <br />Request for Extension of Riverboat Club Subdivision Land Development Permit <br />DATE: October 1, 1993 CONSENT AGENDA <br />Land Development Permit No. 105 for the Riverboat Club Subdivision was approved on March 18, <br />1992. The attached letter dated August 31, 1993 requesting an extension of the permit was received <br />by staff before the September 18, 1993 expiration date. An extension is needed to complete the <br />punch list items identified during the final inspection of the required improvements conducted by <br />staff on October 7,1992. The punch list items include street lights, swale ditch blocks, sodding in <br />the stormwater management tract and survey monumentation. <br />The Department of Utility Services and the Community Development Department staff have <br />reviewed the extension request. Construction of the site's water and wastewater systems is complete <br />and a separate extension of the Utility Construction Permit is not required. The project's Preliminary <br />Plat approval is valid and all land clearing and tree removal work has been completed. See the <br />attached memos dated September 27, 1993, and September 30, 1993. <br />Alternative No. 1 - Grant the 120 day extension requested by the developer's engineer to allow <br />completion of the items in the final inspection punch list. <br />Alternative No. 2 - Deny the extension. This action would require the developer to submit a new <br />land development permit application and review. fee. The application would then be reviewed for <br />conformance with the current land development regulations. <br />Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1. <br />6 <br />